Irvine 11: Trial Comes to an End

Muslim community members and leaders, Shuyukh, aunties from the masjid, youth, children, non Muslim supporters, priests, and at least one rabbi gathered at the Santa Ana Courthouse in California, on Monday, September 19th to stand in solidarity with the Irvine Eleven as closing statements in the trial began. Not only was every seat in the courthouse filled, but the hallways were packed with attendees that could not fit into the room. A press conference was also held on September 19th at which community leaders, Muslim and non Muslim, discussed the trial itself and the impacts it has had on the community.

The Irvine Eleven trial has now concluded and a verdict is awaited from the jury. Jury deliberations will continue throughout today, Wednesday, September 21st. As soon as a verdict is made, updates will be announced here. Please keep the Irvine Eleven in your du'a'as in this crucial time!

Let the American jury trial system do its work. The jurors will hear all the evidence and make a common sense decision. If the jurors decide any of the defendants are guilty of a crime, I will defer to their decision.

What’s important is that we stand up for our brothers just like they stood up against the war criminal who their university spent thousands of dollars sponsoring and treating like a king in a time where students are dropping out of school due to lack of financial aid.

It’s easy to humbly defer to the decision of the jury when it is not YOU standing on trial.

The ‘irvine 11″ and their supporters just don’t get it, because they continue to show a lack of understanding of the 1st Amendment and the rights in America that they seek to trample upon yet also seek to use to their advantage. As Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Irvine’s law school, so aptly stated, “There’s no free speech right to disrupt an event. … It’s not a matter of free speech because there’s no free speech right to shut someone down.” That is the fact none of these people can comprehend as they blindly shout that their 1st Amendment Rights are somehow violated.

The simple concept that they cannot comprehend is that while they had every right to hold a peaceful protest outside the event (but that is not the type of people they are, or the type of speech they support), they had no right to enter in order to disrupt and prevent the event. They showed they are actually opposed to free speech, not faslely claimed supporters of free speech. Democracy and free speech live, not die, by the correct verdict, and this was the correct verdict to protect democracy. If they held an event to support their position, and it was interrupted by a planned conspiracy to prevent their event and speech, they would want to have those responsible arrested. These people did not “st[and] up against the face of oppression” as they spout — they are seeking to oppress rights of others that they disagree with. It is called hypocrisy,a nd anyone who cannot see that is blinded by hate not truth.

“You have to ask yourself, who is more barbaric? Those who protest when a war criminal comes to campus, or those who embrace and wrap him in a cloak of respectability?” -Norman Finkelstein

As a friend of mine stated: “I remember one of the Irvine 10 brothers conveying a story that really stuck with me. Rosa Parks broke the law by siting at the front of the bus and the one little act brought about equality for all individuals. Could see have easily stood up (when asked to move)? Yes but she decided to stand up for justice by staying true to her principles, and historically this is what has brought about change in our country.”

Even if (which I don’t) I agreed with you that the protest “trampled” 1st amendment rights…What on earth do you think civil disobedience is??? It’s to stand up and do the right thing even if the law forbids it.

That being said, the time has come to stop debating the method of debate used and to move forward with what proceeded it.

Nadya, the point you are making is not that the protesters violated the law to pursue a higher principle. You are arguing that the law, itself, is unfair. That is a bold statement. This is different from what many other commentators here are saying, which is that the protesters’ legal rights were violated. Which is it?

Even if (which I don’t) I agreed with you that the protest “trampled” 1st amendment rights…What on earth do you think civil disobedience is??? It’s to stand up and do the right thing even if the law forbids it.

My point is that although I DO believe the protesters rights were violated, even IF I thought they had broken the law, I would still support them.